ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2022
Patient Identification of Diagnostic Safety Blindspots and Participation in "Good Catches" Through Shared Visit Notes.
Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of online patient access to clinical notes on quality of care: a systematic review.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Pooled it
- Tools to engage patients and family members in diagnostic safety: we see the trees, but what about the forest?BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Using "Own-Point-of-View" Video and Stimulated Recall to Reveal Physician Thought Processes: A Methodology Paper.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Priorities for improving paediatric diagnosis: findings from a modified Delphi study.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Thinking critically about AI documentation quality in primary care.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Improving Diagnosis: Evaluation of Diagnostic Experiences Classified as Problems, Mistakes, or Both by Patients and Care Partners From a Nationally Representative Survey.Medical care · 2026Article
- Understanding Patient-Reported Offenses in Electronic Health Records: Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Ten years on: how far have we come in patient engagement in diagnosis?Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
- Spatial analysis of sexually transmitted infection vulnerability among pregnant women in Bandar Lampung: Policy implications for Indonesia's Triple Elimination Program.IJID regions · 2025Article
- Diagnostic scope: the AI can't see what the mind doesn't know.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
- Charting Diagnostic Safety: Exploring Patient-Provider Discordance in Medical Record Documentation.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Bringing team science to the ambulatory diagnostic process: how do patients and clinicians develop shared mental models?Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
- Exploring sociodemographic disparities in diagnostic problems and mistakes in the quest for diagnostic equity: insights from a national survey of patient experiences.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Inpatient Participation in Patient Safety Behaviors: Decision-Making Typologies from a Qualitative Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Embedding Authorship Identity into a Portal-Based Agenda Setting Intervention to Support Older Adults and Care Partners.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Patient and family contributions to improve the diagnostic process through the OurDX electronic health record tool: a mixed method analysis.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- Adverse events and perceived abandonment: learning from patients' accounts of medical mishaps.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Real world challenges in maintaining data integrity in electronic health records in a cancer program.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Do patients who read visit notes on the patient portal have a higher rate of "loop closure" on diagnostic tests and referrals in primary care? A retrospective cohort study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Patient Reasoning: Patients' and Care Partners' Perceptions of Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Care.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Policy Points Patients and families can identify clinically relevant errors, including "blindspots"-safety hazards that are difficult for clinicians or organizations to see. Health information transparency, including patient access to electronic visit notes, now federally mandated in the US and the subject of policy debate worldwide, creates a new opportunity to engage patients in diagnostic safety. However, not all patients access notes. Patient identification of blindspots in their notes underscores the need to systematically and equitably engage willing patients in safety, promote patient "good catches," and establish routine systems for patient feedback to help avoid preventable diagnostic errors and delays. CONTEXT: Policy shifts toward health information transparency provide a new opportunity for patients to contribute to diagnostic safety. We investigated whether sharing clinical notes with patients can support identification of "diagnostic safety blindspots"-potentially consequential breakdowns in the diagnostic process that may be difficult for clinical staff to observe.
methodWe used mixed methods to analyze patient-reported ambulatory documentation errors among 22,889 patients at three US health care centers who read ≥ 1 visit note(s). We identified blindspots by tailoring a previously established taxonomy. We used multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with blindspot identification.
findings774 patients reported a total of 962 blindspots in 4 categories: (1) diagnostic misalignments (n = 421, 43.8%), including inaccurate symptoms or histories and failures or delay in diagnosis; (2) errors of omission (38.1%) including missed main concerns or next steps, and failure to listen to patients; (3) problems occurring outside visits (14.3%) such as tests, referrals, or appointment access; and (4) multiple low-level problems (3.7%) cascading into diagnostic breakdowns. Many patients acted on the blindspots they identified, resulting in "good catches" that may prevent potential negative consequences. Older, female, sicker, unemployed or disabled patients, or those who work in health care were more likely to identify a blindspot. Individuals reporting less formal education; those self-identifying as Black, Asian, other, or multiple races; and participants who deferred decision-making to providers were less likely to report a blindspot.
conclusionPatients who read notes have unique insight about potential errors in their medical records that could impact diagnostic reasoning but may not be known to clinicians-underscoring a critical role for patients in diagnostic safety and organizational learning. From a policy standpoint, organizations should encourage patient review of visit notes, build systems to track patient-reported blindspots, and promote equity in note access and blindspot reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.